Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odISy-0008Sp-QO for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:50:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odISx-0008WS-KR for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:50:11 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odISx-0008W2-An for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:50:11 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1odISu-0007bZ-Uj for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:50:10 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 28RLo7P63845324; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:50:07 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: PostgreSQL Hackers , Justin Pryzby , Dilip Kumar Subject: Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why In-reply-to: References: <20220927200712.GH6256@telsasoft.com> <3825454.1664310917@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3837430.1664311847@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:21:54 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3845322.1664315407.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:50:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3845323.1664315407@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:50 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> There is a second problem that I am going to hold your feet to the >> fire about: >> (lldb) p sizeof(SharedInvalidationMessage) >> (unsigned long) $1 = 24 > Also, I don't really know what problem you think it's going to cause > if that structure gets bigger. If we increased the size from 16 bytes > even all the way to 32 or 64 bytes, what negative impact do you think > that would have? Maybe it wouldn't have any great impact. I don't know, but I don't think it's incumbent on me to measure that. You or the patch author should have had a handle on that question *before* committing. regards, tom lane